Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

I read an article somewhere in which a woman was being given advise on the matter of “holding a husband.” The counsellor’s advise was, “If you want to hold a man you must first set him free.” Sounds paradoxical, but good advice I think. I’m not an expert on such matters, but I think she meant that the best way to hold a man is to let him feel that he is not being “held.”

I read another story, and this one was hypothetical. A man fell over a cliff, and a few feet below the edge he caught a bush that grew out of the side of the cliff. He was terrified and began praying. The story has it that the Lord answered him audibly and said, “What is it you want?” “Save my life,” the man pleaded. “Do you believe that I am able to save you?” the Lord asked. “Oh, yes, I believe.” “What would you be willing to do to show that faith?” asked the Lord. “Anything! Anything at all!” the fellow said. “Then turn loose that bush,” came the answer. This sounds paradoxical, also, but there is illustrated in this story a principle of divine truth. This is particularly apropos of the matter of giving.

We Receive by Giving

In my preaching on giving, I have stopped putting the emphasis on “paying the bills” and “meeting the budget.” I do not mean to minimize the importance of money in the Lord’s work. The more money we have to use, the more work that can be done. But our preaching on giving ought to emphasize the need of the giver more than the need of the money. Paul calls giving a grace (2 Cor. 8:6, 7). Grace is something God does for us, not something we do for Him. And giving our means into the Lord’s work is a favor of the Giver. Why else would the Creator of the world, the Giver of life and the Father of our spirits ask us to give? Does anyone think that God needs our money? Don’t we realize the God could have preached the gospel to the whole world, relieved all the needy and edified all the saints to perfection, without a penny of our money or an effort of any kind on our part if He had chosen to do it that way? What’s the matter with us? When you hear some poor miserable imitation of a Christian complaining about how the church is always needing money, and how the “Bible says charity begins at home,” just tell him to stick his money back into his pocket and save it to buy himself an air-conditioner to take with him when he dies. Because what little he gives would not help the work much and it won’t do him any good at all unless he changes his attitude.

Paul not only says that giving is a “grace,” but that “God is able to make all grace abound towards you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may bound unto every good work . . . . now he that ministereth seed for the sower both minister bread for your food and multiply your seed sown and Increase the fruits of your righteousness” (2 Cor. 9:8, 10).

This simply says that if you will use what God has given you that He will give to you again so that you may abound in His work. This does not mean that God will give you back more dollars and cents than you gave, necessarily. And if you increase your giving because you think you will get back more money than you gave, you have missed the point. Forget it, and start over. However, I doubt that I need say this. But if we “give ourselves to the Lord” as did the Macedonians (2 Cor. 8:5), and consider always that what we have is His rightfully; if we obey the divine injunction to give “cheerfully” and as we “are prospered,” because we want to give it and without considering what we are going to get in exchange, we shall receive abundantly. I believe the passage teaches that this blessing will include material prosperity. But not many of us are willing to trust the Lord to do what He would have us do. We are not willing to “let go” that we might “hold on.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 36, p. 562
September 15, 1977

By Daniel H. King

Two Important Finds

Over the last several months some very exciting things have been reported in many newspapers across the country with reference to discoveries in Jordan and Syria which appear to have either direct or indirect relevance for students of the Old Testament. In reading the accounts I have been tempted on a few occasions to write up a critique on the basis of the mass media reports but my better judgment consistently got the better of me. For several reasons I was determined to wait for reports issuing from the scholarly publications. One major reason is that one does not always get the facts right when dependent upon those untrained in a particular discipline (journalists are usually only expert reporters and not specialists in technical fields of endeavor); there is a well-known tendency on the part of news people to over-estimate and exaggerate for the sake of a mass readership; in addition scholars are usually more apt to be deliberate and reserved in their judgments since their scholarly reputations are “on the line” when they offer their opinions. One will have to wait a while longer to enjoy the fruit of their expertise, but in most cases the wait is justified. Too often we have rushed into print with insufficient information at our disposal and been embarrassed at a sudden change in scholarly mood and sentiment at a later date. Throwing caution to the wind is like spitting into the wind. We never like the results!

I therefore hope that my remarks are not premature or exaggerated. Conservative religious folk are often faulted for over-playing the value of Archaeology in the realm of Evidences. And, perhaps we sometimes deserve it. I have never heard of anyone yet who obeyed the gospel because of the Moabite Stone or the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, although both of these certainly fit into the class of those discoveries which are monumental in their impact upon historical and biblical studies. If I did I would most likely eye them with skepticism, since both things now are clearly aspects of knowledge rather than faith. Knowledge is demonstrable and amenable to validation through scientific means. Faith is not. Faith is “a conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). It comes by the hearing of the Word of God (Rom. 10:17), not by scientific and historical testing and validation. I believe the Bible is true not because Archaeology has proven it to be true (which it has not done and cannot do) but because God said so. People believed the Bible before Archaeology was ever thought of and believed it no more or less since its present popularity. Those who believed the Bible before the many recent discoveries are encouraged and strengthened by them. But, on the other hand, nonbelievers have merely back off momentarily, rallied

their forces, revamped their strategy, changed their tactics somewhat, and mounted a fresh assault on the Scriptures. Nothing has really changed.

So, why do we bother to keep up with the latest finds in Archaeology? For numerous reasons. Assuredly it sets a tone of historical credibility and veracity for the book as a whole as demonstrated by those parts which have been tested in the arena of knowledge. As well, it has out-dated many of the older works which leveled criticism at the Scriptures from the standpoint of historical criteria and has set a mood of caution and solicitude (even gingerliness) over the whole of liberal biblical scholarship which has long been overdue. For these reasons and others we will ever remain in the debt of the many dedicated men who have spent untold hours sifting through the dust of ages past with the hope of giving posterity a greater insight into the text and background of the Bible.

The Balaam Inscription

From Deuteronomy 27:2-4 we learn that the children of Israel were to set up stone monuments in Mount Ebal when they inherited the land of Canaan and to overlay them with plaster. In the plaster was to be inscribed “very plainly” the words of the law. Apparently this passage reflected a custom of monument-making which was frequent in the ancient East, for the text of a similar inscription was discovered in 1967 and reported in the March, 1976 Biblical Archaeologist which bears indirectly upon the story of Balsam as reported in Numbers 22-24. The fragmentary text (or possible texts) was found at Tell Deir — ‘Alla in Jordan by Dr. H. J. Franken. It is written in a dialect of Aramaic which has many affinities with biblical Hebrew and dates from around 700 B.C. The lines are written in a kind of poetic idiom. Herein lies one of the important aspects of the discovery: heretofore Aramaic poetry dating before the Christian era was unknown. Further, the character of the material is prophetic and this makes it the first prophecy of any scope from the ancient West Semitic world outside the prophecies of the Old Testament. Here are a couple of important comments from Jacob Hoftijzer as to content:

“The first combination contains a prophecy In the name of the prophet Balaam, the son of Beor, known in the Old Testament (Num. 22-24; Deut, 23:5-6; Josh. 13:22; 24:9-10; Neh. 13:2; Mic. 6:5, and see also Num. 31:8 and 16). According to Old Testament tradition, this non-Israelite prophet had been summoned by the king of Moab to curse the Israelites, who were marching through Tranalordan Into Palestine proper; but through God’s Intervention Balaam was obliged to bless the Israelites rather than to curse them. In the Old Testament Balsam is clearly a figure who belongs exclusively to traditions about Translordan, it is noteworthy then, that our texts in which be plays a central role, likewise come from a Translordanian holy place. Also, in oar teats Balaam has no connection whatever with anything that can be considered characteristic of typically Israelite religion. If one combines the biblical data with those of Deir– ‘Alla, one moat conclude that for a considerable period of time the figure of Balasm took up a prominent position In a specific religious tradition In Transjordan.

The form in which the prophecy Is narrated resembles those in which certain Old Testament prophecies have been handed down ….

The second combination contains-so far as it is Intelligible–a series of curses, parallels for which are found In many passages of the Old Testament and In other ancient Near Eastern literature . . . (pp. 12-13).”

He further points out that “It is striking how many points of contact there are between this. text and the Old Testament” (p. 14). Certainly scholars are now in possession of a significant piece of evidence in this inscriptional material. We shall anxiously await further details on these Deir — Alla texts. For now we are grateful for the several points of confirmation which are obvious from this material.

The Ebla Archives

During the years 1974 and 1975 in the excavations at Tell Mardikh in North Syria, the Italian Archaeological Mission of the University of Rome unearthed around 16,000 texts from the 3rd millennium B.C. The language of the city called in ancient times Ebla has been labeled Paleo-canaanite and was previously unknown. Surprisingly though, this language represents only about a fifth of the texts. The rest are clearly in Sumerian, the language of the ancient Mesopotamian civilization known as Sumer. Under the direction of Professor Paolo Matthiae, the Italian archaeologists uncovered an entire era of ancient Near Eastern history with the finding of these tablets.

The texts reveal the history of the city of Ebla. They date from the Early Bronze IV period, or about 24002250 B.C. This is before the time of Abraham. Every kind of material is found in these documents: mythological stories, hymns to divinities, incantations, collections of proverbs, royal ordinances, international treaties, legal texts, school exercises, economic and administrative texts, etc. In addition, historical texts of many kinds bespeak the political history of Syria during the term of Ebla’s power.

More importantly for students of the Old Testament, however, is the fact that there are several points of contact worthy of notice. Firstly, in the texts we find third millennium documentation of cities hitherto attested only in the first and second millennia B.C., such as Salim, the city of Melchizedeck, Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo, Gaza, Dor, Sinai, Ashtarot, Joppa and others.

Among the kings of Ebla appears the name of Ebrum, third in the list of Eblaite monarchs. His name is written Eb-uru-um with two possible readings: Eb-ru-um, which resembles the biblical Eber, the father of the Semites according to Gen. 10:21; or Eb-ri-um, which reminds us of the name Eb-ri or “Hebrew.” In his article in the May, 1976 Biblical Archaeologist, Giovanni Pettinato chooses the second as the better alternative (p. 47). Many other names which appear in the Ebla texts appear also in the Old Testament in roughly the same form. The name Da-wi-dum (David) is present in the texts, over a thousand years before the son of Jesse wore it; Ish-ra-il and Ish-ra ya both also appear. And, notably, the name Ya (the Old Testament shortened form of “Yehovah”) and the name II (the Old Testament term El, or “God”) both appear in the texts and seem to point to a specific deity.

Much more could be said about this important archaeological find, but as yet the details are scanty and the interpretations varied. It will take many years to sort out and evaluate properly the mass of data that is now made available through the Ebla excavations. It is certain, though, that exciting days lie ahead for those of us who are intrigued by such things!

Truth Magazine XXI: 35, pp. 556-557
September 8, 1977

By Jimmy Tuten

It is regrettable that my reply to Al Diestelkamp did not appear at the same time his reply appeared in print (Vol. 21, No. 20). The fault lies with me. I received Al’s response to my Sunday night communion articles approximately four weeks before I moved to Charleston, South Carolina. When the copy of his reply was received I had already packed my library and all my notes for the move. Two weeks before I moved I was in a good meeting at Beaufort, South Carolina and returned to another in progress at my home congregation where W. L. Wharton was preaching. Following the move to Charleston I was about 10 days getting around to setting up my office and then immediately thereafter I preached a meeting for the Ashley Heights church where I am now preaching. I am just now getting to Brother Diestelkamp’s reply. I am sorry for the unavoidable delay. My original articles on Sunday night communion appeared in Truth Magazine in Volume 21, Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

There are several comments I want to make about Al’s reply. First, in his conclusion he charges me with establishing my position with tradition. I deny this and maintain that my position is Scripturally established as can be seen by reading my three articles on the matter.

Al says, “if those who share Brother Tuten’s conviction insist upon the participation of us who cannot do so in all good conscience, then they will be guilty of causing division.” Frankly, I know of no one who takes the position I take who forces anyone to take part in the Sunday night communion. We simply insist on the right to do what the Lord commanded us to do, i.e., commune on the Lord’s Day. To the contrary, some of those who hold to Al’s position have split at least one church I know of and have refused to let brethren commune on Sunday evening in other places. It is Brother Diestelkamp’s position that causes the division. Let’s put the shoe on the right foot!

Brother Diestelkamp does not like my reference to “the One Assembly Argument” preferring, he says, to call it “the Second Serving” argument. This change may add some emotional appeal but it does not make Al’s position any more Scriptural.

Because I maintain that the communion can be served anytime during the Lord’s Day, Sunday morning and Sunday night, for example, Brother Diestelkamp charges me with holding to a “metropolitan bishop” concept. This simply is not true! I know of a church which holds two services on Sunday morning: Communion is served at both periods. One worship is on a service base for midshipmen. The other is about three hours later at the building. The midshipmen cannot attend worship at the building at 11:00 A.M. This is Al’s “metropolitan bishop” concept and he would deny the young men the right to commune unless they can attend the one assembly where supposedly all are tarrying one for another to commune. If he denies this he has given up his position on communion in one assembly. If he grants the young men the right to commune three hours ahead of the one assembly communion, and the rest to commune at 11:00 A.M., then he cannot deny other brethren the right to commune in the evening. In either case the brethren are simply doing what the Lord commanded (I Cor. 11:23-26).

As to forming “two congregations,” I think Al had better re-read my article. I admit I could have been more careful in wording this section and should not have used the word “congregation.” But what I said was, “if we should accept the one-meeting-in-one-congregation theory,” then this might be the solution. I do not accept Brother Diestelkamp’s position so I do not argue for a separate congregation. Surely Al can see this. Those who attend Sunday night are as much a part of the flock as those who attend Sunday morning and should have the same right to commune at the only time they can do so. Who gives Brother Diestelkamp the right to “play God” and tell people when they can and cannot commune on the Lord’s Day?

Al wants authority for establishing a congregation for “convenience of time.” Acts 20:7-11 gives every indication that this was a Lord’s day evening meeting, possibly because most of the disciples were slaves and had to work, not having the Lord’s day off as we do. Paul’s continuing his speech until midnight, being ready to depart on the morrow (Act 20:7), and the reference to “lights in the upper chamber” where the disciples were gathered adds weight to this. The reference to “midnight” shows Roman time is under consideration. I am convinced that the church at Troas was established for the convenience of time. I would like to inform Al that some brethren in Missouri who hold his position pulled off from a congregation who would not buckle under to their “Sunday-morning-only communion” idea and started a church of their own. If this is not starting a church for the convenience of time, I do not know what is. Perhaps Al needs to talk to these brethren if he considers this unscriptural. Why do brethren meet at 10:30 A.M. or 11:00 A.M. anyway? For the sake of convenience! Al, are brethren unscriptural in doing this? Maybe you can tell us, based on Scripture, when we should meet. What about it?

On Acts 20:7, Brother Diestelkamp says, “Brother Tuten, you cannot ‘come together’ without being in the same place at the same time.” Al, have you ever seen a congregation whose Sunday morning worship was attended by all of the members down to the last member there? If there is not 100% attendance at your communion time, your argument means nothing. You have to admit that if such should happen it is a rare occasion indeed. Frankly, I have never seen it, not even in small congregations.

Al wants authority for one Christian partaking of the Lord’s Supper at a time and place where other Christians are not partaking with him. This is not the issue! The issue is: do Christians have the right to commune on the Lord’s Day The time element is immaterial as long as it is on the Lord’s Day. The partaking of the Lord’s Supper on this day is vital and I

am not going to refuse one the right to do so. I might add that the Lord’s Supper is just one act among several that is observed on the Lord’s Day. Brother Diestelkamp’s position makes it the most important item because he makes an issue of it. I would like to know where he gets authority for this. His very position de-emphasizes the other acts of worship.

As to I Corinthians 11 and tarrying one for another, to have an argument, Al would have to have all members of the church present at the same time. This is an impossibility except on rare occasions due to the fact that there is always someone out of town, or sick or hindered from attending Sunday morning for some reason beyond their control.

Conclusion

Let me say again that when disciples break bread in one assembly on the Lord’s Day, they are doing what is authorized. When others break bread in another assembly on the same day in the same building, they too, are doing what is authorized. I maintain that the observance of the Lord’s Supper is Scriptural at any hour on the Lord’s Day. If a brother misses Sunday morning unavoidably and wants to commune Sunday night, we have no right to forbid him the privilege of communing with his Lord. “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shew the Lord’s death till he come” (I Cor. 11:26).

Editor’s Note

It is difficult to end a discussion of this nature without leaving one writer without opportunity to respond to questions and arguments made in the last article. Yet the editor’s responsibility to maintain balance requires that he determine when this can be done most equitably. Therefore I have decided that this will be the last article in the exchange between these two brethren on this subject for publication in TRUTH MAGAZINE. Readers who would like a copy of Brother Diestelkamp’s response to the above article may obtain one from him.

Write: AI Diestelkamp 5916 Graceland Drive Peoria, Illinois 61614

Truth Magazine XXI: 35, pp. 553-554
September 8, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Continuing our study under the above heading, we shall now proceed to show that a proper handling of the word of truth requires that we recognize the distinction that the Bible makes between

The Law And The Gospel

This distinction is clearly spelled out in the words of John 1:17. “For the law came through Moses. Grace and truth carne through Jesus Christ.” Also in Romans 6:14, Paul said, “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law, but under grace.” God’s grace is revealed in the gospel. Paul called it, “The gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24). The contrast drawn in the above scriptures is therefore a contrast between the Law and the Gospel.

1. In the first text there is a distinction, or a contrast between the origin of the Law and the Gospel. John tells us that the Law came through Moses, while the Gospel came through Christ. John’s testimony that the Law came through Moses is confirmed by other writers of the Bible. The testimony of Moses should carry some weight. He wrote the first five books of the Old Testament wherein we learn about the giving of the Law. Time after time chapters begin with these words, “And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying . . . .” Exodus 31:1 and Leviticus 17:1 are but two of many such passages. The Old Testament closes with this appeal from the prophet Malachi, “Remember ye the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances” (Malachi 4:4). Then we have the testimony of Jesus. In one of his many confrontations with the Jews of his day, he said, `Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keepeth the law, Why seek ye to kill me?”

That the gospel of grace came through Jesus Christ is abundantly taught throughout the New Testament. The word “gospel” is strictly a New Testament word, used for the first time in Matt. 4:23, where we are told, “And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom.” Mark begins his record with the words, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).

John’s affirmation that the Gospel came through Christ is confirmed by Jesus, himself, in the Sermon on the Mount. In the fifth chapter of Matthew Jesus claimed the authority to set aside the Law of Moses and replace it with his own pronouncements. Verses 21, 22 record Him as saying, “Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that everyone that is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment.” Again, verses 27, 28 record Him as saying, “Ye have heard that it was said, thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that everyone that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

So obvious was it that Jesus was introducing a new system of law that Matthew tells us that, “When he had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching: for he taught as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (Matt. 7:28,29). The scribes and Pharisees were accustomed to quoting what “Moses said” (Matt. 22:24; John 8:5). Jesus, however, introduced his teaching with, “I say unto you.”

In Romans 6:14 Paul made a clear distinction as to that which Christians are under, and what they are not under. “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law, but under grace.”

That Christians are not under the Law given by Moses is abundantly evident from the following facts:

(a) The Law was given to no one but national Israel. Deut. 5:1-3 clearly identifies to whom it was given and also to whom it was not given. Speaking to Israel, Moses said, “Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us who are all of us here alive this day.”

(b) The Law was never given to Gentiles. In Romans 2:14 Paul said, “For when the Gentiles that have not the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves.”

(c) The Law was given for a special purpose and for a limited time. Paul said in Galatians 3:19, “What then is the law, It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made.” Paul tells us in this same chapter that the promised seed is Christ (verse 16). So it is a matter of simple logic that the Law was given until Christ came. This is confirmed by Paul’s words in verses 24, 25. “So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

The Law Abolished

That the law which came through Moses has been abolished is clearly and unmistakably taught in a number of scriptures.

(a) Dead to the Law. In Romans 7:1-3 Paul draws an illustration from the marriage contract. A woman is bound by the law of her husband while he lives, and is free to marry again only when he dies. In verse four he makes the application, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead.” In verse six Paul further said, “But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.”

(b) The Law nailed to the cross. To the Colossians Paul wrote, “Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” Thus Paul said in verse 16, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day.” Why? Because the Law governing those things was nailed to the cross.

Many of us remember the last war and the rationing of scarce commodities. If anyone was found hoarding food, or dealing in a black market, he was judged as a lawbreaker and punished. When the war ended, rationing was abolished. There being now no law forbidding the hoarding of food no one can be judged in that respect. While the Law was in force those who were under it could be judged when they broke it. But because the Law was nailed to the cross, Paul said that no man can judge us in respect of what it once required.

Adventists make an effort to evade the force of these scriptures by a play on the expression, “under the law.” They tell us that the phrase “under the law” means “under the condemnation of the law.” Thus when Paul said that Christians are not under the Law, he meant that they are not under its condemnation.

But the argument backfires. Paul said to the Romans, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law” (Rom. 3:19). Thus when Adventists claim that God was speaking to them when he gave the Ten Commandments, they thereby admit that they are under the Law, therefore, they being witness, are under the condemnation of the Law.

But again: The gospel pronounces condemnation on the unbeliever. Jesus said, “He that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Now, if “under the law” means “under the condemnation of the law,” would not the expression “under grace” mean “under the condemnation of the gospel?” Thus Christians would be worse off than those who were under the Law, for the writer of Hebrews said, “A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment, think ye he shall be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:28,29).

Christians Under The Gospel

Just as certain as it is that Christians are not under the Law, just that certain is it that they are under the Gospel (Romans 6:14). Paul said, “For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son” (Romans 1:9). It is God’s power unto salvation. Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” We are begotten by the Gospel. Paul said, “. . . for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). Christians are established, or strengthened by the gospel. Paul said, “Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ . . .” (Romans 16:25). We are kept, or guarded by the gospel. Peter said, “Who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed at the last time” (1 Peter 1:5). Finally, Christians will be judged by the Gospel. Paul said, “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ” (Romans 2:16).

In an article to follow we shall point out some other contrasts between the Law and the Gospel which must be recognized if we would handle aright the word of truth.

Truth Magazine XXI: 35, pp. 552-553
September 8, 1977